Sunday, May 18, 2008

You remember all of Ron Paul's horrendous no votes where he refused to condemn China over Tibet, and he refused to offer sympathy to the victims of the Cyclone Nargis. Ron Paul's defenders on Digg were quick to defend Ron Paul by claiming that the resolution was meaningless and a waste of tax dollars, and that there was nothing in the constitution to support it. It's a pretty lame excuse, since Ron Paul is wasting just as much time/tax dollars by voting no than he would have wasted voting "yes."

So does "Doctor No" only vote "yes" when absolutely necessary? Apparently not. For all their talk of doing your own research and looking into Ron Paul's voting record, Paultards rarely practice as they preach. Nick Curran from Radar Online did some digging, and discovered that Ron Paul recently voted "yes" on all of the following bills:

It looks like the Paultards may need to find another excuse to fall back on. Where in the constitution does it mention football?

In other news, one of the posters on Ron Paul's official website writes the following:

Ron Paul wants to be the President of the United States and forsake the glamor and the power of the position to restore and protect the liberty of the individual. Who better for an endorsement than an NFL lineman??? How’s this for a free market alternative to Secret Service Protection: Todd Wade, Val Venis (Sean Morley) and Kane (Glenn Jacobs) in badges and armor. When the “small guy” is billed as 6′3″ 260, thats enough meat to turn a riot into a book club.

7
comments:

So Dr. Douchebag votes yes when it comes to celebrating football teams, but no when it comes to helping hurricane victims or expressing sympathies to foreigners being oppressed by totalitarian regimes.

This, of course, raises an important issue - what would he do if the New York Giants were the victims of a hurricane while being oppressed in Tibet?

You have no grounds for an argument here. Dr. Paul voted no to help hurricane victims because it is not the government's place to give charity. The 'football' bills did not allocate any funds. You are so concerned, but have you dotated to the red cross to help the victims? All talk, no action.

Where in the bill does it allocate funds to charity? And why would I have to donate to the Red Cross, why couldn't I donate through my tax dollars? It's funny how Paultards like to whine about how they're being forced to pay for things like roads and schools against their will (even when they're 16 years old and don't pay any taxes at all), but when liberals pay taxes to fund causes that they support, somehow that doesn't count.

BTW, for all your talk of how private charity can fix everything, I would like to see a list of all of the private charities that Ron Paul has donated to, or for that matter, all of the major fund raising drives from libertarians that were being used for the humanitarian purposes that libertarians think that the state should have no involvement in. I talk of taxes, and I pay taxes. You guys talk of charity, but I don't see you donating anything. It's sort of like how Paultards pat themselves on the back for the fact that Ron Paul "offered" to chip in for the Rosa Parks medal, even though he was given the opportunity to chip in and never followed through on it. Apparently, TALKING about charity is more important than actually DONATING to charity.Hell, Ron Paul couldn't even donate the $500 he received from white supremacists to charity.